On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 20:12 -0400, Andres Mejia wrote: > > What I was thinking was to support the old libraries and the new libraries at > the same time, giving those who want to use one or the other for their > packages a choice. This of course is harder than it sounds. > > So yeah, renaming the current openal source package in the archive is a good > idea. It could be named openal-legacy. The binaries shipped by openal however > will need a change. One of the packages (preferably openal-legacy) will have > to rename the library to something else (like openal0a), to avoid naming > conflicts, especially with the development packages. Also, the directory the > header files are installed to will need a different name > (like /usr/include/openal0a). Make sure you fix Modules/FindOpenAL.cmake in cmake to find the "legacy" openal files, and your new ones. I'd be annoyed as a user to find openal breaking because someone is changing the paths and not updating the build tools. Regards, Yagisan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part